beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff left the management of Jin-gun, Daegu-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) 177,223 square meters to the deceased K, who is the inheritee’s decedent. However, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) as to the instant land, based on the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3562, Apr. 3, 1982; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”). The Plaintiff asserted that the ownership transfer registration of this case was based on a false letter of guarantee, and the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer cancellation in proportion to their inheritance shares.
B. In light of the determination, registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be a registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship, so a party seeking the reversal of such presumption has prepared a false letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act, which forms the basis of the said registration.
or forged;
The burden of proof to reverse the presumption of the registration must be proved to the extent that the registration was not duly registered for any other reason. The degree of proof to reverse the presumption of the registration must be proven to the extent that the substantive contents of the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, which served as the basis of the registration, are not true, and the presumption of registration is not reversed unless there is any such proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189, Apr. 29, 2005), and evidence No. 7, evidence No. 8-1, No. 8-2, evidence No. 9, and evidence No. 1, No. 10-5, etc. are insufficient to recognize the fact that the letter of guarantee, which served as the basis of the ownership transfer registration of this case, was falsely prepared or forged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. If so, the plaintiff's objection.